# DIY Meerschaum Coloring Bowls



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

I'm getting a new meer soon, and I'm going to make my own coloring bowl. Here's what coloring bowls are. Click through the thumbnails below the big picture.

Basically, they work on unsmoked meers because by moving the combustion to a separate bowl, the walls of the new meer (which is porous) don't get clogged. This is why the shank always colors first on meers when smoked normally; there's never any combustion clogging up and blackening the walls of the shank. A coloring bowl turns the entire pipe into a shank. This is also why coloring bowls are no use to a pipe already smoked.

Now, I'm not going to carve one out of meer - no sir. I'm DIYing one from a Missouri Meerschaum bowl and a wine cork. Meerschaums are pricey enough, there's no advantage to a meer coloring bowl, they're expensive, and cobs smoke great and are cheap enough for me to cannibalize for this project.

I'll be posting pics of the construction and the coloring process along the way.


----------



## MontyTheMooch (May 27, 2012)

Interesting.


----------



## TheRooster (Jul 18, 2012)

There seems to be some argument as to whether that is why the shank always colors first... One school of thought I've read is that the bees wax that meerschaum pipe makers now use melts too much and gravity drags the tar down to the shank first. There are several other schools of thought. It's all pretty much conjecture... That said, the one thing I've read to look out for with a coloring bowl is that you don't want the rim of the coloring bowl to be too high above the rim of the meerschaum you are using it to color. A significant share of what colors the meershaum is the smoke hitting the outside as well as the tar moving out from the inside.

The biggest practical effect of the coloring bowl seems to be that it keeps the pipe itself from heating up too much... This can be a good thing, as that keeps the sealing wax from melting excessively, however, it can also be a bad thing as common knowledge seems to dictate that if the wax doesn't warm up enough it doesn't move, which keeps the tars from being transported to the outside of the pipe... Given my (very limited) knowledge of convection, that seems to make a lot of sense in both cases.

All of that said, I've been smoking my little meerschaum apple from paykoc since the beginning of october... I haven't been using a coloring bowl, but I have been relatively careful not to handle the bowl with my hands too much while smoking. I also try (emphasis on try not always meaning succeed) to keep from over sipping while I'm smoking it. I tend to smoke a lot of musketballed/fold and stuffed flake from it, so it will go out from time to time... Seems like a good safety mechanism against over heating it. I am just starting to get some yellowing around the rim of the bowl, and I don't have any coloring around the shank yet at all.

That all said, if it colors nice, great, but I don't really care all that much... I've only been following the guidelines for coloring meerschaum to the point where I see them starting to inhibit my enjoyment of the tobacco itself. It's a great smoker, so I'm not too concerned if it doesn't come out a perfect spotless glowing brown.

I am curious to see how this works out for you... The one thing that has surprised me is that even with how thin the bowl walls are on the pipe I'm talking about, the coloring process takes a VERY LONG TIME. I'll be interested to see what results you get from your coloring bowl. I would think that while it may guarantee a more even color, it will also lengthen the process considerably since less smoke will be hitting the outside of the bowl, and less of the tars that actually color the meerschaum will actually be getting to the meerschaum.

Keep us posted.

Edit: Spelling and usage


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Will do. But I've gotta say I disagree with the ideas in your first two paragraphs based on my meerschaum smoking. The way my meer is carved the heel sits lowest, and as the shank not the heel colored, I think the gravity thing is right out.

As for the wax melting and hot smoking. I think this hundred year old pipe debunks that. This pipe has been smoked by at least three generations, and the only cleaning it received according to the current owner, was wiping it down with a cloth now and then. It was never rewaxed in a century. So this idea that the wax is vital to the tars just wafting away is hard to believe.









Don't take this personally; I'm gunning for the myths, not the man.

And that's a huge part of this project for me. I want to cut through the centuries (literally) of BS (figurative) and document what works and why. Here's my theory in short:

*Wax:*
the wax aids in initially clogging the outer pores but is non-vital long term. If I melted any remaining wax off the above pipe (and how much could there be, really), I submit there's no way the color seeps out.

*Gravity:*
Non-factor

*Rim coloring:*
caused by lighter, matches, and overfilling -- typically blackening and or light charring of the wax, not coloring.

*Exposed, unclogged meer:*
This is the key. Meer that hasn't been clogged with ash and tar or wax. The smoke is free to seep into the porous meer and after time color builds up. When smoked without a coloring bowl like the above pipe, the stem colors first and the bowl only colors after the shank has thoroughly colored dark and is basically overloaded with coloring -- then the coloring seeps into the bowl via the shank end. This is why coloring bowl-smoked pipes color evenly.


----------



## IrishCamel81 (Jan 26, 2009)

My meer seems to have not colored at all this year. As I think something must be wrong and not accept that it takes time, I think of two potential errors I might have made. 1. Using a paper towel with a bit of water to clean of dirt and ash. 2. I cant tell if there is a cake in the bowl, it's black in there and I don' want to scrape too hard.

Fun fact: That meerschaum pipe in the above post is just 5 minutes from my home. It is even more beautiful in person.


----------



## TheRooster (Jul 18, 2012)

drastic_quench said:


> *Wax:*
> the wax aids in initially clogging the outer pores but is non-vital long term. If I melted any remaining wax off the above pipe (and how much could there be, really), I submit there's no way the color seeps out.


I am completely going from second hand information here, so no worries about hurting my feelings... That said, that pipe may not be soaked in wax at all... Wax was not the preferred dipping material for meerschaums until all of the other materials they used to use became to sparse... The one I've seen mentioned most when it comes to antique pipes crafted in Europe or America is Spermicetti...

Either way, assuming that this particular pipe was dipped in wax I do believe that if you heated it to a degree significant enough to liquefy the wax, then found a way to remove the wax, that _most_ of the color would very quickly disappear. Meerschaum by itself wouldn't present a shiny/smooth exterior, aged or no, it's a porous mineral, so my guess would be that there is still a significant amount of whatever it was dipped in still soaked into the meerschaum proper.

Again though, just my opinion based off what I've read.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Yeah, isn't that a trip to think there could be spermaceti still locked in there?


----------



## TheRooster (Jul 18, 2012)

Seriously... Anyway, let me know how the coloring bowl comes...


----------



## pipinho (Aug 27, 2011)

this is my two cents on smoking meers and being obsessed with coloring them for about 2 years:
from my experience the wax does color. Early on i had a tendency to over wax my pipes and in the deep carvings i would have little globs of wax logdged in them. (i used to melt the wax and them brush it on a the pipe, thus the over waxing). when i would scoop the wax out later it changed in color, but not from dirt ect. The wax turned slightly brownish in color, mind you i use bleached beesewax so the wax itself was clear. Therefore it does make me think that the wax does collect the tars ect from the tobacco. Also, every time i wax my meer it gets browner so yes IMHO the wax does aid the coloring process.


----------



## Thirston (Feb 2, 2011)

Very interested in the outcome as I tried to build my own crude meer bowls out of a large meer cigar holder and then 
briar scraps. Finally just broke down and bought a Butera bowl which works without a hitch. Probably should have spent
more time planning the build of it and hitting hardware stores for obscure hollow screws but I didn't.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Interesting thoughts great thread subscribed!


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

Hmm interesting thread. I don't know a whole lot about them but I know that my meer has grow four or five full shades darker near the shank and bits and pieces of coloring through out which could hardly be considered even by any means. My meer seemed to color a shad even after first smoke in fact the meer has only been smoked six or so times. But each bowl is more than an hour so it gets a lot of smoke in one sitting. But then again I am not really interested in the color so much as I am the properties of the material which I believe create the perfect smoke. The color is really a bonus for me.


----------



## gahdzila (Apr 29, 2010)

Subscribed. Interesting ideas. I don't own a meer, but am fascinated by all things tobacco related . Looking forward to your build and results.


----------



## GlassEye (Oct 25, 2009)

Someone on another pipe forum has dissected a meer pipe to experiment with coloring and how the wax is related, the experiment is ongoing at this point, I believe. He has inserted plugs of the meer pipe into a cob, some plugs were waxed, some left unwaxed. If it is allowed, I will find a link.


----------



## pipinho (Aug 27, 2011)

i just rewaxed two of my pipes and they are a bit darker than before. So to me, this reinforces the idea that the wax does matter.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Well, whether the coloring is caused by gravity, wax, or sacrificing virgins under a full moon, I like the DIY coloring bowl idea. I already have a couple of coloring bowls, but I'll be tuning in to see how you attack this project, DQ.


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

gahdzila said:


> Subscribed. Interesting ideas. I don't own a meer, but am fascinated by all things tobacco related . Looking forward to your build and results.


You should get one I highly recommend it.


----------



## GlassEye (Oct 25, 2009)

Here is the thread on the other forum I was talking about, quite interesting. "More meerschaum expermentation"


----------



## pipinho (Aug 27, 2011)

great stuff.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

GlassEye said:


> Here is the thread on the other forum I was talking about, quite interesting. "More meerschaum expermentation"


Interesting idea. But I can't help thinking it would have been a better experiment if he had just waxed the outside of the plugs, the way a meer pipe is waxed, rather than waxing the entire plug. Plus it's probably going to taste like crap until the wax burns off...


----------



## gahdzila (Apr 29, 2010)

Great minds think alike! Someone else is trying this as well, it seems. I just stumbled upon this thread on another forum:

Corn cob coloring bowl | Pipe Smokers Forum


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

TheRooster said:


> I am completely going from second hand information here, so no worries about hurting my feelings... That said, that pipe may not be soaked in wax at all... Wax was not the preferred dipping material for meerschaums until all of the other materials they used to use became to sparse... The one I've seen mentioned most when it comes to antique pipes crafted in Europe or America is Spermicetti...
> 
> Either way, assuming that this particular pipe was dipped in wax I do believe that if you heated it to a degree significant enough to liquefy the wax, then found a way to remove the wax, that _most_ of the color would very quickly disappear. Meerschaum by itself wouldn't present a shiny/smooth exterior, aged or no, it's a porous mineral, so my guess would be that there is still a significant amount of whatever it was dipped in still soaked into the meerschaum proper.
> 
> Again though, just my opinion based off what I've read.


Hmmmm. Don't know anything much about the material beyond "it is waxed"; not sure about the process used - hot dip or rubbed on. However... The first meerschaum I got was a no-name second I used when a student. I didn't take much care of things in those days and it got pretty dirty. When I quite recently took up pipes again it looked in a sorry state but was basically sound. I decided there was nothing to lose in trying to clean it. A LOT of Falcon Pipe Spay was applied repeatedly, inside and out (mainly out), which saturated the material and washed off the dirt and wax - not that any wax was really apparent. When it dried out it was a bit dull, but also darker. I re-waxed it with a simple beeswax stick polish which is unlikely to penetrate much. The shine came back and the pipe was still darker, but no more so than in the unpolished state. Still a bit of a ropey second, but fairly respectable. Actually... Quite nice really; I should smoke it more often.

What I take from this is that the extra colouring came about from the tars, etc. from the burnt tobacco being more concentrated on the inside of the bowl and the solvent allowing this to diffuse through the material more readily than normal. If it was the wax doing the business, I would have expected the colour to lighten when it was washed off. Also, the area around the mortise is much slower to colour - whatever causes the colouring must come from the inside out. Wax may well help the process by acting as a medium for the tars to move through, but I'm pretty convinced that the main agent is diffusion of the tars out through the material.

I've also seen a "quick colouring" method for meerschaums. Fill the bowl, half smoke and refill. Repeat a few times and leave the level of concentrated tarry tobacco up to the level to which you want to colour the pipe. Leave for a few weeks and (I'm told) the bowl will be markedly darker. Never tried it myself, but it does make sense if it is the tars that are responsible.

On the subject of spermaceti, we still keep an ancient pot of whale oil for certain metal quenching in one of our material labs (never used it - don't know what exactly it is used for). Don't let anyone tell you that whale oil is a sweet smelling material. After 60 years or so it STINKS.

(btw - For any Americans who wince each time they see the "u" in colour, I offer no apology. It pains me to see it highlighted as a spelling error. Both spellings are apparently acceptable, but "colour" is simply correct IM(not so H)O. So there.)


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

IrishCamel81 said:


> My meer seems to have not colored at all this year. As I think something must be wrong and not accept that it takes time, I think of two potential errors I might have made. 1. Using a paper towel with a bit of water to clean of dirt and ash. 2. I cant tell if there is a cake in the bowl, it's black in there and I don' want to scrape too hard.
> 
> Fun fact: That meerschaum pipe in the above post is just 5 minutes from my home. It is even more beautiful in person.


Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but if you mean that the pipe hasn't coloured at all in a year of smoking from *new*, then it's possible that this is a composite meerschaum pipe. Crushed meerschaum bound together with resin. Those don't colour to my understanding. But, if it smokes well and you enjoy it - who cares?

As to removing cake from a meerschaum, I've been told that you shouldn't allowed it to build too thick as the differential expansion of the materials can crack a bowl. But then, an awful load of BS is spouted on every subject by "experts". Particularly by me (not an expert).

@drastic_quench - That is a REALLY beautiful pipe. Shame I'll have to wait until long after I'm dead for any of mine to get nearly that good.


----------



## GlassEye (Oct 25, 2009)

steinr1 said:


> (btw - For any Americans who wince each time they see the "u" in colour, I offer no apology. It pains me to see it highlighted as a spelling error. Both spellings are apparently acceptable, but "colour" is simply correct IM(not so H)O. So there.)


I agree.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

gahdzila said:


> Great minds think alike! Someone else is trying this as well, it seems. I just stumbled upon this thread on another forum:
> 
> Corn cob coloring bowl | Pipe Smokers Forum


Nice. That's pretty much what I have in mind. Though, I'm using a larger cob for longer smokes.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

steinr1 said:


> What I take from this is that the extra colouring came about from the tars, etc. from the burnt tobacco being more concentrated on the inside of the bowl and the solvent allowing this to diffuse through the material more readily than normal. If it was the wax doing the business, I would have expected the colour to lighten when it was washed off. Also, the area around the mortise is much slower to colour - whatever causes the colouring must come from the inside out. Wax may well help the process by acting as a medium for the tars to move through, but I'm pretty convinced that the main agent is diffusion of the tars out through the material.


Okay, I see how you're thinking. The explanation I'm familiar with from the "wax is important and necessary" camp (and I have no direct knowledge myself, but I'm not going to fill the rest of this post with "according to" in every sentence) is touched upon by your last sentence. However, it is argued that the wax is _essential_ in being the medium for the tars. The wax on the outside of the bowl does absolutely nothing to aid in coloring the bowl. The process is as follows: when the pipe is smoked, the interior of the bowl heats up, which will start to melt the wax closest to the surface of the pipe (as you can see, we're obviously talking about a very small quantity of wax here!), which is pulled into the bowl by the heat. _This_ is the wax that is used by the tars to get around. When the wax is pulled in, hot, and reaches the tars that have been absorbed by the meer, the tars jump right on. When the wax then cools, the tars then spread throughout the wax, reaching the surface.

This theory (if that's what it is) also explains the shank darkening first conundrum. If you heat up the outside of the pipe, the heat in the bowl won't be as effective at pulling in the wax, therefore preventing the tars from mingling, etc. Since the shank doesn't have tobacco burning in it, the inner heat is solely from smoke, and the outer heat remains room temperature, promoting wax absorption and later, coloring.

Again, I'm no expert, and I'm just repeating a theory, but the theory makes sense to me.

As a sidenote, this seems to me to indicate that a meer would color without wax, but from the inside out like briar, greatly increasing the time required.


----------



## lostdog13 (Jan 16, 2012)

debating purchasing a meer (mostly to smoke during the holidays each year). Intrigued and subscribed


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

lostdog13 said:


> debating purchasing a meer (mostly to smoke during the holidays each year). Intrigued and subscribed


What are you debating about? You should buy one. If your wondering a brand I am about to sit down and write a review on my imp. So I would check the review thread in a couple o hours or so.


----------



## lostdog13 (Jan 16, 2012)

Dr. Plume said:


> What are you debating about? You should buy one. If your wondering a brand I am about to sit down and write a review on my imp. So I would check the review thread in a couple o hours or so.


I most certainly will


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

**** STOP PRESS ********

I knew I had one. And there it was on the desk in front of me in a box of pipe odds and sods. A broken meer. Clearly showing greater concentration of colour on the INSIDE of the stem area. And greater concentration on the OUTSIDE of the same area. With a lighter area in between. I'd post a picture but unable at the moment so you'll need to take this on trust. So all my carefully laid out postulations are for nought. Quite possibly the "wax sucks" brigade has it right. If not then something else is happening. At the very least, I can definitely saw "I don't know". If we were to spell the "mystery" with a capital "Mystery" then we could simply put it down to the act of a Higher Authority and not need to wrack our poor mortal minds over it.

Yet another rich source of ill understood science (certainly on my part).



MarkC said:


> Okay, I see how you're thinking. The explanation I'm familiar with from the "wax is important and necessary" camp (and I have no direct knowledge myself, but I'm not going to fill the rest of this post with "according to" in every sentence) is touched upon by your last sentence. However, it is argued that the wax is _essential_ in being the medium for the tars. The wax on the outside of the bowl does absolutely nothing to aid in coloring the bowl. The process is as follows: when the pipe is smoked, the interior of the bowl heats up, which will start to melt the wax closest to the surface of the pipe (as you can see, we're obviously talking about a very small quantity of wax here!), which is pulled into the bowl by the heat. _This_ is the wax that is used by the tars to get around. When the wax is pulled in, hot, and reaches the tars that have been absorbed by the meer, the tars jump right on. When the wax then cools, the tars then spread throughout the wax, reaching the surface.
> 
> This theory (if that's what it is) also explains the shank darkening first conundrum. If you heat up the outside of the pipe, the heat in the bowl won't be as effective at pulling in the wax, therefore preventing the tars from mingling, etc. Since the shank doesn't have tobacco burning in it, the inner heat is solely from smoke, and the outer heat remains room temperature, promoting wax absorption and later, coloring.
> 
> ...


*** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE ***
*** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE ***
*** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE *** IGNORE ***

At the risk of (as the German used to say) "Arguing over the length of the Kaiser's beard"...

I follow, but quite see some of this... If you light a waxed paper match, the process is that the wax melts, is wicked in towards the flame (no problem so far) as fuel. For this "inward", towards the flame, movement, capillary action, by surface tension forces (my favourite) is at play. There is also a visible process by which the liquid wax appears to be driven away from the flame. Not sure of the forces at play - or indeed if it really happens. Looks like it, though. Without the wax being consumed by combustion, I don't think that the capillary action would MOVE any wax. If it is consumed, then at some point it would run out. I don't believe there is any evidence that it does - otherwise re-waxing of meerschaum pipes would be part of the ritual laid down over the last (350+ ??) years. The wax might be driven outwards, as per the "other" force, but I don't think that this is even necessary. The wax will melt, however. That's fairly certain.

The above stuff seems to rely on the basic solubility (or at least motility) of the colouring agents in liquid wax. If it is like the simple chromatography examples of our schooldays, then it would also rely on the loss of the solvent (wax) as the pigments moved outward (usually by evaporation in these demonstrations) which would lead to the precipitation of the pigments nearer the outside. Again, consumption of the solvent and eventual need to refresh it would be a requirement.

However, simple diffusion would seem to be sufficient. Pigments are produced by the combustion and will tends to diffuse through the material

What would really be needed is a precise measurement of the concentration gradient of the "stuff" that colours a pipe across a section of the bowl. The only thing that I have seen that approaches this is the section which shows more darkening near the drilling and less near the surface. Even this is ambiguous as there looks like a gradations very close to the bore. Less right up close in.

AND THEN THE VISION OF THE BROKEN PIPE APPEARED AND THE MYSTERY WAS REVEALED - OR NOT...


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

Review is up in the review section. http://www.cigarforums.net/forums/vb/pipe-related-reviews/320575-imp-meerschaum-review.html


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

Jut bought another imp meer this one is a estate in the beginning stages of coloring. At the great suggestion of Robert I am going to a coloring experiment with pictures every 5 to 10 smokes to see how they color over time. One is lattice one is smooth. A thread in the review section will be opened tomorrow and a link on this thread there will be. The other pipe will be here Ina couple weeks but for now I will take a starting picture of the smooth which has only about 7 smokes on it and we will get it going. This is going to take a lot of tobacco.


----------



## gahdzila (Apr 29, 2010)

Dr. Plume said:


> This is going to take a lot of tobacco.


But it's a labor of love


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

gahdzila said:


> But it's a labor of love


Indeed.


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

Link as promised. http://www.cigarforums.net/forums/vb/pipe-related-reviews/320687-great-meer-detective.html#post3760518


----------



## Dr. Plume (Sep 24, 2012)

Well the first pics are up so if yur interested venture on over and take a look. The game is afoot!
http://www.cigarforums.net/forums/vb/pipe-related-reviews/320687-great-meer-detective.html#post3760518


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Finally got my IMP meerschaum.










Chopped down a MM Diplomat. I wanted to use a general, but I couldn't sacrifice one since they're hard to find lately. I used one that I've already broken in. It's already proven itself. I cut a wine cork down to just fit into the rim snugly. There was no need to make a one size fits all for my purpose. For the metal bit I settled on a stainless steel syringe from a cheapo marinade injector I had lying around. Cheap and foolproof, and the draw is enough to pass a pipe cleaner. Elmer's glue - non-toxic. I jammed and glued a wood plug into the old shank hole. I could have sanded and cleaned this up, but it's a cob; who cares?










I snipped off most of the needle.









Fits great.


----------



## ProbateGeek (Oct 13, 2010)

Already at the end of this thread? Pshaw. . . I was looking for more. Subscribed, and here's the story of my meer.

Mine is an estate pipe I got from Marty Pulver, and as you can see from the first photo it was bone white on arrival.










From what I can figure, even though it was pure white it had been smoked quite a bit a long, LONG time ago; from the aromas the prior owner was a obviously a latakia nut. About a dozen smokes in, I had barely colored it at all. Oh, how I hated those little circular pips!










It was only when I got tired of the "busy" look of the bowl, and so decided to sand the pips off (and smelled all that ancient latakia) and then gave it a good beeswax bath that all the old oils were finally able to make the trip from the inner recesses to the outer surfaces, where they were then retained by the wax (or so my version of the theory goes). The pipe is at its darkest just after being smoked, but as it cools a little of the color makes its reluctant trip back inside. Here's how the colors popped after the beeswax bath and a couple of weeks of daily smoking:


















Now mine seems to be carved in a very odd way, in that it is not solid meer from inner bowl to outer surface. There is about a 1/8th inch air gap (if you can see into the many holes) between the two. Also notice how the top of the pipe is the most colored. When I first smoked it out of the bath, the top and upper sides became a very opaque and wet looking butterscotch color, but only while hot. It was a pretty amazing transformation - the uppermost portions were a solid color, like looking at a soft caramel shaped into a pipe. It returned to normal once cooled. I can only surmise that most of the tars flow up from the bowl into the top of the pipe first, and then flow down into the side surfaces. I know they aren't going directly from bowl to side - due to the air gap. The shank does not appear to have colored first - it is mottled somewhat (I would never use a glove or handle it different from any other pipe - don't know about the previous owner or owners, or if that has any relevance at all to its coloring). I wish I could tell what's going on deep down at the base of the bowl, but would have to crack it open to see precisely how it was carved. That ain't gonna happen.

So, it's still all a mystery to me, too. I was hoping my experience with this unique carving might shed some light on what's going on with meers.


----------



## mikebjrtx (May 21, 2012)

Terry, that's a sweet looking pipe. I'm kicking myself for not snagging it out from under you. It does look much better without all the little pips


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

This isn't the end of the thread. I'll be posting coloring photos periodically. Nice pipe.

Once I started knocking the cob bowl together, I knew a step-by-step DIY was unnecessary as it was very easy with nothing more than a Leatherman and Elmer's glue. If a guy has a drill on hand -- fuhgeddaboudit. The one thing I didn't cover was that the Diplomat has a helpful wood plug in the base which I roughed up with a saw in order for the glue to adhere better. All told. 10 minutes. If this works, it's a hell of a lot better than shelling out for an expensive meer version.


----------



## TheRooster (Jul 18, 2012)

ProbateGeek said:


> Already at the end of this thread? Pshaw. . . I was looking for more. Subscribed, and here's the story of my meer.
> 
> Mine is an estate pipe I got from Marty Pulver, and as you can see from the first photo it was bone white on arrival.
> 
> ...


I'm really interested to hear the process you used for the beeswax "bath" as you put it.


----------



## ProbateGeek (Oct 13, 2010)

TheRooster said:


> I'm really interested to hear the process you used for the beeswax "bath" as you put it.


It was quite simple. The only hard part in the whole ordeal was forking up the $17 for the pound of natural beeswax. My mistake there was going to a craft shop rather than directly to a local beekeeper. But I'm by nature fairly lazy, so there.

While melting the beeswax on low heat in the deepest small pot I have, I used a large cork to stop up the bowl and some kind of clay (stolen from my daughter) to cover the mortise/shank face. Once the wax was melted I took it off the heat and just floated the meer in the wax, turning occasionally (meer floats) with wooden chopsticks. After about 12-15 minutes I took the pipe out and set it on a cooling rack. The colors were already pretty vivid, and the smell divine.

I may be doing the process again soon to see if anything else happens. Couldn't hurt, one would think.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Don't know if it's the process he used, but here's Altinok's recommendation:

Altinok Pipes® - ME171 Beeswax - 250gr (8.8oz)

By the way, if you can find a apiary nearby, you can buy a hunk of beeswax for change. Or sometimes they'll just give it to you. I got a two pound block from the lady I buy my honey from gratis.


----------



## Thirston (Feb 2, 2011)

Always wondered how that was done. Thanks.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Proof of Concept: 1st Smoke

I'm not going to post pictures of every smoke, but here's the thing in action for the first time. It worked every bit as well as I expected. It smoked ultra cool as well because it's basically a calabash with its large chamber for the smoke to cool. The draw from the coloring bowl to meerschaum was comparable to a decent Peterson. I didn't want to go with anything wider in order to cut down on gravity dropping ash, embers, and loose tobacco down into the meerschaum bowl. As you can see with these photos ashing was minimal.

The fuzzy effect from the photos is from me getting epoxy on my phone's lens when I built a canoe over the summer. It is not a soap opera dream sequence.









What you're seeing here is the end result of a single smoke. The bowl of the meerschaum now resembles what the shank of a normally smoked meer after a smoke.









The line between the colored and white meerschaum is where the wine cork fits. I cut it back in my design as much as possible to still provide a sure fit yet allow for maximum coloring. This raw/unwaxed meer in the bowl just soaks the color up. If I had smoked this normally without a coloring bowl, the meer's bowl would be largely blackened and charred already, clogging the pores, and slowing coloring.









The cork provides a sure seal, and the wood plug in the cob shank was airtight. Best of all, I can puff away with impunity and not worry about heating up the meerschaum.

I'll post another round of photos when color begins to surface, and then periodically. As the weather improves, I will be smoking the ever-loving hell out of this thing. When the cob bowl smokes down, I play to reload and smoke on.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

This old NY Times article talks about a very similar method of coloring, basically, only igniting tobacco in the topmost part of the bowl:
MEERSCHAUM PIPES. - HOW THEY ARE MADE, AND THE SCIENCE OF COLORING THEM PROPERLY. - View Article - NYTimes.com

The coloring bowl uses the same logic, but improves upon it by removing the combustion from the meerschaum entirely.


----------



## ProbateGeek (Oct 13, 2010)

drastic_quench said:


> I'll post another round of photos when color begins to surface, and then periodically. As the weather improves, I will be smoking the ever-loving hell out of this thing. When the cob bowl smokes down, I play to reload and smoke on.


Thanks for doing this, DQ - should be fun to watch over the months as your pipe colors.


----------



## ProbateGeek (Oct 13, 2010)

< _bump _>

Been a couple of months, DQ - any progress?

The other day I was able to take photos of the butterscotch/caramel effect I talked about earlier (post #38 ):




The top of the pipe became translucent (kind of a weird effect - what am I seeing in there?), and you may notice the light glistening of beeswax on the uppermost parts of the sides, which have become a solid color. The beeswax droplets show up better in the shaded areas. Again, the smell of beeswax mingled with the smoke from the Royal Yacht is entirely pleasant.

When the pipe cools it pretty much all looks like the shank, colored but splotchy. Really enjoying this pipe!


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

I've been measuring progress by tins instead of time. One man's "four months of smoking" is another man's year. I'm going to borrow a camera to take higher quality pictures. I've smoked 1/2 a 2oz tin of Fillmore through it, and with this prime pipe smoking weather, I'll smoke through the tin by early June. The color is very uniform but not dramatic yet because of how little has gone through it. I'd say it's gone from bone white to a light ecru. I need color swatches. Pictures to follow.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Eh. The color shift is too subtle for my lo-res camera. The system is working, I just haven't put enough baccy through it yet.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Unsmoked










2oz of Fillmore + A few bowls of TAMBOLAKA ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)










You can see, I've hit light beige. The coloring is so completely even, that it creeps up on you. I'm sure a few more tins will take me to light brown. Overall, I'd really recommend a DIY cob bowl. The stainless steel marinade injector needle makes for a top notch shank, and cleaning is a snap, plus you get all the fantastic smokability of a cob.


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)




----------



## Gandalf The Gray (Jul 22, 2013)

I found a very interesting article on meerschaum pipes, On page two they have some great info on coloring bowls(or rather a persons journey with a coloring bowl).

Coloring Meerschaums - Seattle Pipe Club


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

Gandalf The Gray said:


> I found a very interesting article on meerschaum pipes, On page two they have some great info on coloring bowls(or rather a persons journey with a coloring bowl).
> 
> Coloring Meerschaums - Seattle Pipe Club


Most definitely an interesting article. But it does point to the fact that this view of colouring a meerschaum is much about colouring and little about smoking. I get the distinct impression that the real colouring afficionados would rather have an evenly coloured pipe than one that smoked well. Smoking is an inconvenience that needs to be gone through rather than a pleasure with the colour of the meerschaum an added bonus. They are the meerschaum's bitch.

I'm sure my meerschaums are coloured appallingly. But I simply don't care.


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

steinr1 said:


> (btw - For any Americans who wince each time they see the "u" in colour, I offer no apology. It pains me to see it highlighted as a spelling error. Both spellings are apparently acceptable, but "colour" is simply correct IM(not so H)O. So there.)


FYI, it is possible to add words to your browser's dictionary.
Once you add all your goofy, Queen's English words (i.e. colour, flavour etc) your browser will never again pester you to speak like an American.

Here's how you do it in Firefox...
1) Right click the underlined word
2) Click 'Add to Dictionary' in the dropdown


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

I'd also need to remove "color" (sic) so that it *would* be highlighted as an error.

And, of course, "independence" and other such seditious verbiage.


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

steinr1 said:


> And, of course, "independence" and other such seditious verbage.


Touché


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

I apologise for the shocking spelling error in my post. It's now corrected.


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

Doun't mentioun iut


----------



## Gandalf The Gray (Jul 22, 2013)

Emperor Zurg said:


> Doun't mentioun iut


Yew Spailed a few wurds wrong Zurg. Better You's that spail chek.


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

Naw, I was adding an unnecessary 'u' in an effort to make our brutish, British brethren feel more at home.


----------



## Gandalf The Gray (Jul 22, 2013)

Lol.


----------



## ProbateGeek (Oct 13, 2010)

steinr1 said:


> ...Smoking is an inconvenience that needs to be gone through rather than a pleasure with the colour of the meerschaum an added bonus. They are the meerschaum's bitch.


So very well said.


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

I have to admit that I am willingly the meerschaum's bitch. For about six months, usually. After that I lose patience and it's just a pipe. But I won't deny that the coloring process adds an extra degree of fun to the whole thing if you don't get too wrapped up in it. I figure that if I really, really have to have a thoroughly colored pipe, I can pick up a new meer along with an aquarium pump, some tubing, coloring bowl (have to use a MacArthur cob...) and about ten pounds of someone's floorsweeping blend and set up a science experiment...


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

Fantastic idea! Or maybe get a beagle and have him smoke it for you. I understand that beagles traditionally love smoking.


----------



## El wedo del milagro (Jul 3, 2012)

steinr1 said:


> Fantastic idea! Or maybe get a beagle and have him smoke it for you. I understand that beagles traditionally love smoking.


I think we already addressed this. Maybe not...

My wife has a Beagle mix. Around here we call hound-dog mixes "Tortilla Hounds".

He loves it when I smoke my pipe, because he gets a good long while to sniff everything outside, and pee on it. But, he, himself, doesn't ever smoke.


----------



## steinr1 (Oct 22, 2010)

El wedo del milagro said:


> I think we already addressed this. Maybe not...
> 
> My wife has a Beagle mix. Around here we call hound-dog mixes "Tortilla Hounds".
> 
> He loves it when I smoke my pipe, because he gets a good long while to sniff everything outside, and pee on it. But, he, himself, doesn't ever smoke.


I've seen rows of beagles smoking, albeit cigarettes rather than pipes (or does the scientific paraphernalia count as a pipe? Ref. Mary Beith's photos inside ICI). Are you sure your wife's hound doesn't sneak off for a crafty *** every now and then?


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

steinr1 said:


> Are you sure your wife's hound doesn't sneak off for a crafty *** every now and then?


For those of us unfamiliar with British colloquialism...

 --> *** Talk - Video


----------



## El wedo del milagro (Jul 3, 2012)

steinr1 said:


> I've seen rows of beagles smoking, albeit cigarettes rather than pipes (or does the scientific paraphernalia count as a pipe? Ref. Mary Beith's photos inside ICI). Are you sure your wife's hound doesn't sneak off for a crafty *** every now and then?


No cigarettes in my house, if Maverick has any, he has them well hidden.

I'm sure he hasn't taken any of my pipes or cigars, so if he is smoking he has his own stashed somewhere.


----------



## ras_oscar (Aug 30, 2015)

I watched a youtube video where a meer pipe carver waxed half of a meer chip. On the thin end the waxed half became translucent. I think that's how the wax works. made the stone less opaque so it appears to improve the color. See this. 



 time index 18:37 That also explains why the color appears to fade until rewaxing. The wax wears off and the surface color becomes more opaque again. I find it difficult to understand how wax, a surface product, would affect the movement of tars through the stone. IMHO, if anything, it would clog the pores and reduce tar movement

From my reading, the shank colors first because that's where the moisture collects. Likely as much from the mouth as from the bowl.

I believe the other reason the shank colors first is because the rest of the bowl is carbonized except for that little bit at the bottom of the bowl that never seems to get completely smoked.

I also saw a youtube video here: 



 (advance to time index 6:44) where someone treated their meer with olive oil instead of wax. Anybody tried that? I have heard that in the 19th century meer smokers used spermacetti oil; to draw tars through the stone. Could olive oil be a modern substitute?

Please don't interpret my comments as impertinence or disrespect to other members of this community. I understand I am questioning long held wisdom. I could well be full of S^%$. I'm a novice, which is why I come here. To learn. Also, I have an awesome I. Baglan skull coming soon, and I'm thinking of experimenting with a coloring bowl or olive oil.

And finally, to further add to the confusion, I have heard at several locations (like here http://allthingscutty.blogspot.com/2015/08/coloring-your-ancient-meerschaum.html )about placing a small coin or bone button at the bottom of the bowl with a hole drilled in it. Once again, like the coloring bowl, preserving an area of uncharred meer to receive the tar and moisture from the tobacco.


----------



## ras_oscar (Aug 30, 2015)

Am I the only person that blows smoke onto the outside of their meer while smoking? Am I in need of counseling?


----------

